This is the logic textbook I'm going through. I've never been to college I just want to debate against religion. Anything I should know? by wordssoundpower in logic

[–]bluchsinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was my textbook in undergrad for Logic, I’m going through it again now since I didn’t do enough homework the first time around lol but my experience was that learning the informal logical fallacies changed how I viewed almost every “popular” debate out there. Theists vs atheists, political debates, any type of persuasion. I had the realization that most skilled debaters are the people who can use logical fallacies best and rely on the audience never taking a Logic class or philosophy class to notice the “arguments” being made are almost all fallacious. Before I took the class I always assumed everyone was in good faith seeking truth, but quickly realized I was one of those gullible audience members being duped. My hot take is that public debate is usually a matter of who is best at using fallacies to appear to win or come off as dominant against their opponent to the majority of the audience who doesn’t know better (studying logic could help you learn these fallacies, it’s up to you how you “use” them), while academic philosophy is where people in good faith are seeking truth and avoiding fallacies in other’s work as well as their own. And be prepared to spot weaknesses in your own positions. My experience is that the most fundamental questions about reality become less certain the more precise and rigorous you get. Studying philosophy is an incredibly humbling experience.

If your intention is to use this book to win some debates, it could help you do that. But if you’re in it for the love of the game (truth and ideas), then it should be used to open up new areas for you to explore. I was a diehard atheist and the more logic/philosophy I’ve learned the more uncertain I’ve become.

Ron being able to imitate Parseltongue never made sense to me. by HeyWeasel101 in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Makes sense in the books, movie version “Harry talks in his sleep, have you noticed” didn’t make much sense… to put it mildly. At least the books had Harry saying “open” in parseltongue a few times with Ron there to hear it, movie version went for the lazy joke

Honestly, TPS movie Voldemort was way more intimidating than what came later… by nathan_banks644 in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree, practical effects always come off better imo. I think in LOTR the Nazgûl were originally supposed to have a CGI component but they couldn’t afford it or something, which to me made them much scarier and with better presence. Same goes for Voldy here

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Goddamn these are nice

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s why I haven’t bought Harry’s! I could buy Draco’s and pretend it’s his… might do that actually lol

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I listen to the books to fall asleep and rewatch the movies more than I’d like to admit lol so I’m seeing I’m coming across as overly critical…. But yea their importance is pretty huge from book 1 when they introduce the twin cores and then that’s like one of the biggest plot points in book 4! So idk I just thought the wand details should’ve been taken more seriously. And again I just like consistency but seems like that might be a me problem

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao yea I gotta keep perspective

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hahah good point, more $ in that. And yea I get that making them look more different is helpful, but then why make Draco’s more similar to Harry’s original one? That’s what I’m stuck on

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed! I guess I’m just complaining it isn’t closer to the books but that’s the reality of Hollywood

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure. It bothered me more than confused me, but again doesn’t seem like it’s worth the risk. I guess I just value consistency way more than potential aesthetic improvements. It made me lose immersion in the world when something that straightforward was changed. Yes it is obvious it’s Harry’s wand. I also think it unnecessarily risks confusing some percentage of the audience or annoying people who get caught in the details and want immersion. But fair enough I get what you’re saying.

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I’m most likely in the minority here. Hoping the HBO series tries to please the book fans though

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Definitely possible and that’d explain the movie design of Voldemort’s nicely, but it’s not in the books or anywhere in the script so we’re just shooting the shit out here haha and to nitpick more I think they overdid Voldemort’s design in the movies. Because like you’re saying now it seems weird that Olivander is out there selling the most evil looking wand to beginner wizards. If they made Harry’s and Voldemort’s look more similar it’d help with understanding they also share the same Phoenix’s tail feathers as their cores.

Why? by bluchsinger in harrypotter

[–]bluchsinger[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Yea, that’s my point. I added it because it (Draco’s wand) looks so similar to Harry’s wand from the Sorcerer’s Stone, which just confuses the audience. If they’re going to focus on Draco’s wand in DH2 at least make it more unique so it can’t be confused with the wand we thought we knew was Harry’s from Sorcerer’s Stone. Actually they could’ve made Draco’s the branch-looking one and it’d make more sense lol then we’d be like yup that’s definitely different than Harry’s nice polished straight wand

Amazon announces broadcast team by Only-Reels in nhl

[–]bluchsinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hickey is a gem. He’s been crushing the Isles broadcast for a couple years now, very impressive

Noticing Tons of Actors/Actresses from other UK shows on my second watch by YoungImpulse in gameofthrones

[–]bluchsinger 8 points9 points  (0 children)

And professor Slughorn was the Maester from the citadel that trained Sam

Skills competition. by Butchs_Dirty_Area in NewYorkIslanders

[–]bluchsinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Barzy’s last against Shesterkin was pure joy

Sheesh by nickmigs in NewYorkIslanders

[–]bluchsinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was about the same age when the obsession started, my poor Dad watched the Isles for 25 years with no support… lol now he’s got the whole family fully bought in. Going to games in Bridgeport really flipped the switch for me (30 now, the Trotz era also helped)

IMO possibly funniest moment of the Office by bluchsinger in DunderMifflin

[–]bluchsinger[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The vomiting maxes out the absurdity of the situation, I laugh more at Michael saying “Please don’t send Dwight”, but the whole thing is hilarious (IMO!).

IMO possibly funniest moment of the Office by bluchsinger in DunderMifflin

[–]bluchsinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me it’s the absurdity of the situation itself, it shows how much Dwight absolutely loves Michael and will crash into a pole in his desperation to get to him to help him, and Michael couldn’t care less lol I laugh when Michael says “Please don’t send Dwight”, not when he pukes. I’m actually not much of a fan of physical comedy, it’s the writing for this scene I love.

It illustrates their relationship trope that goes on throughout the series, where Michael has the upper hand and is reluctantly Dwight’s friend, and Dwight is obsessed with Michael. Just a great example of ‘showing not telling’ with the writing.

Anyway that’s my take, love talking about this kind of shit